COMMERCIAL  UNION 

BETWEEN 

Canada  and  the  United  States 


An  Address  delivered  before  the  Canadian  Club  of  New  York 

BY 

Hod.  B.  BUTTERWORTH,  H.  C. 


NEW  YORK 
E  R AS  T  US  WIMAN,  314  BROADWAY 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


COMMERCIAL  UNION 

BETWEEN 

Canada  and  the  United  States 


An  Address  delivered  before  the  Canadian  Club  of  New  York 


Hon,  B.  BUTTERWORTH,  M.  C. 


NEW  YORK 
ERASTUS  WIMAN,  314  BROADWAY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/commercialunionbOObutt_0 


COMMERCIAL  UNION 

BETWEEN 

CANADA  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


An  Address  delivered  before  the  Canadian  Club  of  New  York 

BY 

Hon.  B.  BUTTERWORTH,  M.  C. 


M r.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Canadian  Club  of  New 
York  : 


ADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  have  first  to  thank 
■    you  for  the  kind  courtesy  that  calls  me  before  you. 


It  is  my  purpose  to  discuss  the  merits  of  full  and  com- 
plete reciprocity  of  trade  and  commerce, — commercial 
union,  if  you  please,  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Dominion  of  Canada.  Import  and  export  duties  are  levied 
for  two  purposes. 

First. — To  collect  revenue  to  defray  the  expenses  and 
to  pay  the  debts  of  the  government. 

Second. — To  encourage,  foster,  and  protect  domestic  in- 
dustry. 

The  protective  system,  as  it  is  called,  has  for  its  ob- 
ject to  do  away  with  the  inequalities  which  obtain  between 
competitors  in  the  several  industries  in  this  country  and 
those  of  the  old  world  engaged  in  the  same  field  of  em- 
ployment. 


4 


Commercial  Union  between 


It  was  not  intended  as  an  agency  for  the  mere  increase 
of  profits,  the  question  for  Congress  to  consider  not  being 
simply  the  magnitude  of  profits  resulting  from  manufac- 
tures, but  whether  we  should  be  able  without  the  protective 
duty  levied  on  articles  of  commerce  produced  in  the  old 
world,  to  engage  successfully  in  manufactures  at  all  ;  the 
established  plants  of  the  older  countries,  with  the  rare  skill 
acquired  during  the  centuries  gone,  the  abundance  of  cheap 
labor,  enabling  European  manufacturers  to  lay  down  goods 
at  our  doors  cheaper  than  we  could  possibly  produce  them. 
Hence  money  invested  in  a  shop,  mill  or  factory  must  in 
the  nature  of  things,  in  the  presence  of  such  competition, 
be  a  dead  loss. 

This  did  not  apply  with  such  force  to  the  agriculturist 
who  can  compete  with  the  world  in  the  growth  of  agricul-  . 
tural  products.  Of  course  the  protective  tariff  raised  the 
price  of  all  the  articles  upon  which  this  duty  was  imposed, 
and  the  cost  of  most  of  the  articles  the  farmer  used  except 
such  as  he  produced  himself  was  enhanced.  He  found  his 
compensation  under  the  protective  system  in  this,  that  in 
the  building  up  of  our  industries  under  its  influence  great 
cities  and  towns,  centres  of  large  industrial  population, 
grew  up  and  provided  a  market  for  the  product  of  the 
farms.  So  that  what  the  farmer  lost  in  the  increased  price 
of  the  articles  he  purchased,  he  more  than  made  up  by  the 
increased  amount  he  received  for  the  supplies  he  was 
enabled  to  sell  to  those  employed  in  the  industries  which 
owed  their  existence  to  the  protective  system.  As  a  tub  to 
the  agricultural  whale  a  tariff  was  levied  upon  farm  produce 
also. 

The  European  manufacturer  and  merchant  cannot  land 
a  plow,  a  trace-chain,  a  knife  or  hoe  upon  our  soil  without 
paying  a  large  tax  to  our  government  for  the  privilege.  Nor 
can  the  merchant  sell  us  a  yard  of  cloth  or  silk,  or  a  quin- 
ine pill,  until  he  has  paid  the  duty  levied  by  Congress.  Of 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


5 


course  all  this  is  paid  at  last  by  the  consumer,  who  finds  his 
compensation  for  the  alleged  burden  in  the  prosperity  of  his 
country  brought  about  in  the  manner  I  have  mentioned. 
The  tariff  is  a  tax  levied  arbitrarily  by  Congress — there  is 
but  one  party  to  it.  It  is  a  matter  with  which  the  nation 
adopting  the  system  has  to  do. 

It  should  and  does  ostensibly  deal  with  unequal  condi- 
tions in  the  field  of  competition,  its  mission  being  to  equalize 
them.  It  follows  logically,  and  as  a  common-sense  proposi- 
tion, that  when  the  conditions  are  equal,  so-called  protection 
is  disguised  robbery,  legalized  filching  from  one  citizen  to 
enrich  another. 

Reciprocity  of  trade  involves  an  agreement  between 
two  nations,  according  to  the  terms  of  which,  trade  and 
commerce  are  to  be  carried  on  between  the  citizens  of  the 
two  contracting  nations. 

What  is  proposed  in  the  present  instance,  and  the 
merits  of  which  I  propose  to  discuss,  is  full  and  complete 
reciprocal  trade  and  commerce  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada,  by  the  terms  of  which,  for  all  purposes  of  trade, 
barter  and  exchange,  the  two  countries  shall  be  as  one;  the  ar- 
rangement having  nothing  to  do  with  the  form  of  government 
or  political  conditions,  there  being  no  necessary  connection 
or  relation  between  the  political  institutions  of  a  country 
and  its  trade  and  commerce.  We  seek  by  this  arrangement 
to  remove  all  the  custom-houses  along  our  Canadian  frontier, 
to  withdraw  the  line  of  pickets  that  keep  watch  and  ward 
on  both  sides  along  4,000  miles  of  our  northern  boundary 
to  see  to  it  that  the  American  farmer  does  not  sell  his 
neighbor  across  the  line  some  early  potatoes  or  early  corn 
without  first  going  to  the  custom-house,  paying  a  large  part  of 
the  value  of  the  produce  for  the  privilege,  and  compelling 
the  Canadian  to  submit  to  the  same  extortion  before  he  can 
sell  to  his  friend  who  supplied  him  with  the  early  corn  and 
potatoes  a  later  variety  of  the  same  articles;  that  we — as  the 


6 


Com  m ercial  U nion  between 


inhabitants  of  what  is  for  all  purposes  of  trade  a  common 
country,  being  in  race,  religion,  ancestry  and  tradition  one 
people,  differing  only  in  our  political  institutions — shall 
throw  down  the  barriers  that  now  block  every  highway  of 
business  prosperity  and  progress,  and  open  all  the  courses 
and  channels  of  trade  between  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the 
Northern  boundary  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada — that  the 
farmers,  manufacturers  and  merchants  shall  seek  out  mar- 
kets unhampered  and  unrestricted  in  every  part  of  this  vast 
field  of  development,  and  thereby  settle  at  once  and  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  our  race  and  civilization  the  petty  squab- 
bles, now  more  than  a  century  old,  about  the  fisheries.  He 
who  appeals  to  the  protective  system  as  between  competi- 
tors in  Canada  and  in  the  United  States  asks  monopoly, 
not  equality.  He  seeks  an  unjust  advantage,  not  an  equal 
opportunity. 

As  against  the  old  world,  both  Americans  and  Cana- 
dians may  invoke  the  protective  system  ;  but  as  between 
Canadians  and  Americans  it  has  no  proper  place,  unless  to 
authorize  extortion  in  the  interest  of  the  monopolists  is  the 
proper  mission  of  legislative  effort. 

There  is  not  a  condition,  there  is  not  a  worthy  interest 
involved  in  the  proposition  that  does  not  cry  out  against 
the  present  system  and  in  favor  of  the  fullest  reciprocal 
trade. 

Careful  investigation  will  disclose  that  the  growth  of 
our  industries  is  in  a  large  measure  the  result  of  our  system 
of  patent  laws,  which  has  funded  and  multiplied  industries 
almost  beyond  computation.  It  is  well  to  be  sure  as  to 
the  actual  sources  of  our  prosperity.  I  have  not  time  to 
discuss  this  factor  of  the  problem  more  at  length,  but  must 
proceed  to  the  main  question,  the  nature  of  which  I  have 
endeavored  to  explain. 

The  adoption  of  the  system  proposed  would  involve  an 
assimilation  of  tariff  rates  and  internal  revenue  taxes,  and 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


7 


possibly  an  arrangement  for  pooling  receipts  from  customs, 
and  a  division  on  some  equitable  basis — all  of  which,  as 
has  been  fully  demonstrated,  present  no  serious  difficulty  or 
embarrassing  problem. 

The  details  of  the  arrangement  I  do  not  propose  now 
to  discuss.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  policy  being  de- 
cided upon,  the  execution  is  easy. 

The  time  and  condition  of  the  two  countries  force 
this  question  upon  public  attention. 

It  is  said  that  unsettled  public  questions  have  no  pity  for 
the  repose  of  nations.  The  truth  of  that  saying  is  fitly 
illustrated  by  the  presence  with  us  for  a  century  of  an  un- 
settled question  between  the  United  States  and  Canada 
touching  the  fisheries.  It  stands,  and  has  stood  since  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  a  constant  and  threatening  menace  to  the 
peace  and  repose  of  both  nations.  It  has  been  a  barrier  in 
the  highway  of  our  trade  and  commerce.  It  relates  to  a 
single  industry,  and  the  effort  has  been  made  repeatedly  to 
settle  it  without  reference  to  other  interests  with  which  it  is 
in  the  nature  of  things  inseparably  intertwined.  As  sug- 
gested, the  question  is  not  new,  nor  does  it  now  for  the  first 
time  force  itself  forward  and  challenge  the  thoughtful  con- 
sideration of  both  nations.  It  relates  to  the  rights  and  ob- 
ligations of  the  fishermen  of  the  two  countries  to  catch  fish 
in  certain  localities  and  to  sell  them  in  certain  markets. 
Relating  solely  to  the  privileges  of  a  few  thousand  fisher- 
men engaged  in  a  single  avocation,  it  draws  into  the  vortex 
of  the  controversy  all  other  interests  pertaining  to  trade  and 
commerce  between  the  two  nations.  Canada  and  the 
United  States  are  contiguous  parts  of  the  same  territory. 
They  both  formed  a  part  of  the  Dominion  of  Great  Britain. 
The  colonists  of  the  now  United  States  bore  their  share  of 
the  burdens  and  endured  equal  hardships  and  fought  to  es- 
tablish the  sovereignty  of  the  British  flag  in  what  now  con- 
stitutes the  Dominion  of  Canada.     The  history  of  the  Do- 


8 


Commercial  Union  between 


minion  is  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  United  States,  so 
far  as  her  political  relation  to  the  mother  country  is  con- 
cerned. She  has  run,  and  is  running  the  same  course  ;  the 
only  difference  being  that  England — wisely  and  justly,  under 
the  influence  of  a  riper  and  more  enlightened  civilization, 
under  the  inspiration  of  a  broader  statesmanship,  in  which 
the  sword  plays  a  less  conspicuous  part  than  formerly — ac- 
cords to  Canada  a  prompt  redress  for  every  grievance,  re- 
cognizing the  demands  of  the  situation  and  the  inexorable 
logic  of  events.  The  careful  student  of  history  will  dis- 
cover that  the  demands  of  the  Canadian  provinces  upon 
the  mother  country  for  larger  powers  and  wider  jurisdiction 
in  the  management  of  affairs  that  appertain  and  relate 
solely  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  citizens  of 
the  several  provinces  have  been  of  a  character  which  pass 
quite  beyond  what  would  have  satisfied  the  American 
colonist  originally.  Canada,  while  entertaining  and  cher- 
ishing respect  and  affection  for  the  mother  country,  has 
learned  in  the  school  of  experience  her  needs,  and  has 
in  a  manner  which  suggested  something  more  than  firm- 
ness petitioned  for  relief  which  has  at  first  or  last  been  ac- 
corded. The  restrictions  thrown  around  and  the  burdens 
imposed  upon  the  trade,  commerce  and  manufactures  of  the 
colonies  by  the  mother  country  were  intolerable.  No  peo- 
ple fit  to  be  free,  and  being  at  all  worthy  of  their  English 
ancestry,  would  submit.  They  did  not  submit.  Whether 
they  and  the  world  are  gainers  by  their  course  results  must 
attest. 

It  is  exceedingly  interesting  to  note  how  like  suppliants 
the  colonists  approached  the  mother  country  and  sued  for 
relief  against  laws  and  administration  confessedly  oppress- 
ive and  intolerable,  and  then  observe  the  manner  in  which 
our  cousins  on  the  North  stand  up  and  demand  what  their 
experience  has  taught  them  properly  belonged  to  a  free  and 
enlightened  people  in  the  matter  of  self-government.  Eng- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


9 


land  long  since  decided  that  free-trade  was  best  for  her  in- 
terest, but  not  until  she  became,  under  a  different  system,  the 
workshop  of  the  world  and  mistress  of  the  seas.  Her  re- 
strictions upon  the  trade  of  her  American  colonies  had  little 
of  the  flavor  of  free-trade  about  them,  so  far  as  the  colonists 
themselves  were  concerned.  Virginia  was  required  to  ship 
her  tobacco  to  England  and  only  in  English  vessels.  Eng- 
land interposed  her  authority  to  paralyze  every  manufac- 
turing industry  in  the  country.  That  condition  of  things 
could  not  last,  and  we  were  finally  compelled  to  set  up  for 
ourselves,  but  not  until  we  had  helped  to  establish  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  British  flag  over  the  country  north  of  us. 
In  1763  England  sent  to  Canada  the  first  Governor-Gen- 
eral. During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
legislative  bodies  of  Canada  had  little  power  ;  but  during 
the  last  fifty  years  the  provinces  have  not  been  slow  to  de- 
mand such  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  home  govern- 
ment as  the  necessities  of  the  people  required,  and  England 
has  acceded,  though  not  always  with  good  grace,  until  the 
destiny  of  Canada,  by  common  consent,  is  practically  con- 
fided to  Canadians.  If  her  past  is  England's,  her  future  is 
her  own.  The  growth  of  Canada  in  the  direction  of  sub- 
stantial independence  in  the  matter  of  managing  her  own 
affairs  has  in  no  wise  disturbed  the  filial  regard,  if  I  may 
use  that  expression,  which  naturally  and  inevitably  grows 
out  of  the  relations  which  Canadians  sustain  to  the  people 
of  England.  I  say  the  people  of  England,  not  the  English 
government.  I  make  the  distinction-  because  there  is  a 
broad  difference  between  an  affectionate  regard  for  the  peo- 
ple of  a  nation  and  unquestioned  loyalty  to  the  govern- 
mental policy  which  that  nation  may  see  fit  to  adopt.  I 
was  devotediy  attached  to  my  father,  loved  and  honored 
him.  I  might  not  have  enthused  greatly  over  his  ideas  of 
the  discipline  he  would  have  regarded  as  necessary  in  my 
household  after  I  had  a  home  and  a  family  of  my  own, 


LO 


Commercial  Union  between 


Canadians,  for  the  best  of  reasons,  must  cherish  the  deepest 
and  sincerest  affection  for  their  English  ancestors.  So  do 
we  all.  But  that  does  not  involve  in  hrge  degree  a  sur- 
render of  that  independence  of  character  and  action  which 
is  inseparable  from  decent,  worthy  manhood,  as  that  quality 
asserts  itself  in  the  concerns  of  the  individual  or  the  affairs 
of  the  State. 

I  am  addressing  Canadians  whose  loyalty  to  their  coun- 
try and  institutions  cannot  be  called  in  question.  I  only 
refer  to  the  history  of  the  course  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada  toward  their  mother  country  to  show  that  what  has 
been  in  the  past,  and  what  in  the  future  will  be  sought  is 
the  freedom,  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  citizens  of 
each  nation  ;  that  they  have  in  fact  been  treading  the  same 
paths  to  attain  the  same  end.  Canada  remains  loyal  to 
England,  very  naturally  and  very  properly,  because  the 
latter  has  accorded  to  her  those  rights  and  privileges,  a  de- 
nial of  which  to  her  children  of  the  Republic  when  they 
were  colonists  drove  them  into  emulating  the  example  of 
their  English  ancestors,  namely,  to  sue  for  their  rights  ;  if 
need  be,  fight  for  them. 

The  controversy  about  the  fisheries  is  our  quarrel.  It 
is  for  us  to  settle  and  to  adjust  it  in  consonance  with  en- 
lightened principles  and  a  decent  and  just  regard  for  the 
rights,  duties,  obligations  and  interests  of  all  the  citizens  of 
both  nations.  Such  a  settlement  has  hitherto  been  impossi- 
ble because  negotiations  proceeded  from  the  stand-point  of 
English  ideas  of  what  economic  principle  should  govern  in 
the  establishment  of  the  trade  and  commerce  between  the 
people  most  deeply  interested.  A  permanent  and  lasting 
solution  of  the  question  was  and  must  continue  to  remain 
impossible,  so  long  as  English  as  contradistinguished  from 
Canadian  interests,  are  a  matter  of  first  consideration.  No 
full  and  final  adjustment  having  reference  to  the  prosperity 
and  lasting  peace  of  the  two  countries  can  be  had  except 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


11 


the  negotiations  proceed  from  the  stand-point  of  the  imme- 
diate interests  to  be  affected  thereby,  and  they  are  essen- 
tially the  interests  of  the  provinces  of  Canada  and  of  the 
United  States.  And  beyond  that,  the  adjustment  must  not 
proceed  upon  the  idea  or  theory  that  the  fishing  interests 
are  to  be  segregrated  and  treated  as  if  they  stood  apart  and 
alone,  free  and  disassociated  from  other  interests,  industries 
and  avocations.  Any  discussion  or  settlement  that  pro- 
ceeds upon  any  basis  except  that  of  securing  the  greatest 
good  to  the  greatest  number,  is  partial  and  unjust,  as  resting 
upon  a  false  premise.  The  controversy  about  the  fisheries 
grew  up  in  this  way.  Prior  to  the  American  Revolution 
the  inhabitants  of  the  English  dependencies  in  America  en- 
joyed a  common  fishing  ground  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Nova  Scotia,  Newfoundland,  and  in  the  bays  and  gulfs  in 
that  locality.  The  treaty  of  1783,  which  terminated  the  war 
of  the  Revolution,  in  a  vague  way  defined  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  fisheries. 
Controversies  innumerable  were  constantly  growing  out  of 
alleged  trespasses  by  one  party  or  the  other,  and  armed 
cruisers  were  maintained  on  the  ground  to  keep  the  peace 
and  protect  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  nation  whose 
flag  the  cruiser  floated  at  the  mast-head. 

The  treaty  of  Ghent,  which  witnessed  the  end  of  the 
war  of  1814 — signed  in  December,  1814 — was  silent  on  the 
subject  of  the  fisheries.  Subsequently,  England  was  dis- 
posed to  treat  that  omission  as  a  surrender  by  the  United 
States  of  substantial  rights  in  the  fishing  grounds  theretofore 
enjoyed  by  the  Americans.  This  was  not  allowed  by  the 
United  States  and  so  the  dispute  went  on,  threatening  from 
time  to  time  to  culminate  in  war.  In  1851  the  relations  of 
the  two  countries  were  strained  to  the  last  degree — I  speak 
of  England  and  the  United  States,  Canada  being  treated  as 
the  cause  of  the  quarrel  rather  than  as  being  a  party  to  it. 
Canada  was  the  little  boy  whose  big  brother  had  stepped 


L2 


Cow  nurctal  Union,  hdwecn 


on  him.  Statesmen  viewing  this  question  from  only  two 
proper  stand-points  of  observation  and  negotiation,  to  wit, 
the  United  States  and  Canada  maintained  that  the  contro- 
versy involved  something  beyond  the  interest  of  the  respect- 
ive parties  in  the  fisheries.  The  question  swept  the  whole 
range  of  trade  and  commerce  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States,  and  it  was  maintained  by  the  statesmen  of 
that  day  that  the  only  adjustment  which  ought  to  commend 
itself  to  the  several  governments  was  one  which  placed  our 
international  trade  on  a  different  footing — that  free  reci- 
procal trade  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  was  the 
true  solution  of  the  difficulty.  This  could  only  be  effected 
by  treaty  with  England.  Canada  stood  by  and  waited,  and 
took  what  was  sent,  but  grumbled  the  while.  Such  favor  did 
the  idea  of  reciprocity  of  trade  find  that  in  1848  the  House 
of  Representatives  passed  a  bill  which  had  for  its  object  the 
establishment  of  that  relation.  John  Quincy  Adams  was  a 
member  of  that  House.  Robert  C.  Winthrop  and  Abraham 
Lincoln  were  also  members  of  that  House.  The  attitude 
of  the  Whig  party  toward  reciprocity  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  they  had  a  majority  of  ten  in  the  House  which 
passed  the  bill  I  have  mentioned.  The  Senate  was  Demo- 
cratic. The  bill  failed  to  become  a  law  only  because  there 
was  not  time  before  adjournment  for  its  consideration  by 
the  Senate.  Wm.  H.  Seward  was  then  Senator  from  New 
York.  Daniel  Webster  was  Secretary  of  *  State,  Millard 
Fillmore  was  President.  It  had  come  to  be  recognized  that 
the  only  possible  settlement  of  the  controversy  in  regard  to 
the  fisheries,  which  could  be  just  and  lasting,  and  which 
would  tend  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  two  parties 
whose  interests  were  immediately  and  most  affected,  was  the 
removal  of  the  hampering  restriction  upon  commerce  and 
the  enlargement  of  the  trade  relations  between  the  United 
States  and  Canada. 


Canada  and  the  United  States.  13 


Mr.  Seward,  in  closing  his  speech  on  the  subject  of 
the  fisheries,  said: 

"  What  the  colonies  require  is  some  modification  of 
commercial  relations  which  may  affect  the  revenue.  That 
is  a  subject  proper  to  be  acted  upon  by  Congress.  Let  us 
no  longer  excite  ourselves  and  agitate  the  country  with  un- 
availing debates,  but  let  us  address  ourselves  to  the  relief 
of  the  fishermen  and  the  improvement  of  our  commerce. 
There  is  only  one  way  that  Congress  can  act,  and  that  is  by 
reciprocal  legislation  with  the  British  Parliament  or  the 
British  colonies." 

And  he  asks  the  question  whether  or  not  there  cannot 
be  some  measure  adopted  of  reciprocal  legislation  to  ad- 
just these  difficulties  and  enlarge  the  rights  of  our  fisher- 
men consistently  with  all  the  other  interests  of  the  United 
States. 

The  wisdom  of  those  who  adopted  that  view  has  been 
attested  by  time  and  experience.  Partial  reciprocity  came 
in  1854,  and  only  failed  in  its  mission  because  it  was  par- 
tial, unequal,  and  in  a  measure  unjust.  It  is  believed  that 
Canada  had  the  advantage  in  that  arrangement.  However, 
the  treaty  which  secured  a  measure  of  reciprocal  trade  only 
proved  the  adequacy  of  the  remedy  if  properly  applied. 

In  furtherance  of  this  same  policy,  President  Grant,  in 
1874,  negotiated  a  treaty  establishing  in  part  substantially 
what  is  now  proposed.  The  propositions  embraced  in  that 
treaty,  which  was  negotiated  by  President  Grant  and  Secre- 
tary Fish  on  the  one  side,  and  Sir  Edward  Thornton  and 
the  Hon.  George  Brown,  commissioners  for  the  provinces 
and  Great  Britain,  on  the  other,  embraced  the  following 
propositions,  which  I  quote  from  a  report  semi-officially 
submitted  by  Mr.  Brown  to  the  Canadian  Senate  : 

"  The  draft  treaty  embraces  ten  propositions  :  1.  The 
concession  to  the  United  States  of  our  fisheries  for  twenty- 
one  years,  and  the  abandonment  of  the  Washington  trea'y- 


14  Commercial  Union  between 


arbitration.  2.  The  admission,  duty  free,  into  both  coun- 
tries, of  certain  natural  products  therein  named.  3.  The 
admission,  duty  free,  of  certain  manufactured  articles  there- 
in named.  4.  The  enlargement  of  our  Welland  and  St. 
Lawrence  canals.  5.  The  construction  of  the  Caughnawaga 
and  Whitehall  canals.  6.  The  throwing  open  to  each  other, 
reciprocally  by  both  countries,  the  coasting-trade  of  the 
great  inland  lakes,  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  river.  7.  The 
concession  to  each  other  on  equal  terms  of  the  use  of  the 
Canadian,  New  York  and  Michigan  canals.  8.  The  recip- 
rocal admission  of  vessels  built  in  either  country  to  all  the 
advantages  of  registry  in  the  other.  9.  The  formation  of  a 
joint  commission  to  secure  the  efficient  lighting  of  the  great 
inland  waters  common  to  both  countries.  10.  The  forma- 
tion of  a  joint  commission  to  promote  the  protection  and 
propagation  of  fish  on  the  great  inland  waters  common  to 
both  countries."  [The  proposed  Caughnawaga  canal  was 
intended  to  connect  the  St.  Lawrence  river  at  Montreal 
with  the  northern  end  of  Lake  Champlain.  The  Whitehall 
canal  was  intended  to  connect  the  Hudson  river  at  Troy 
with  Lake  Champlain  at  Whitehall.] 

It  will  be  observed  by  reference  to  the  list  of  articles 
covered  by  this  treaty  that  it  is  free  from  one  of  the  objec- 
tions suggested  with  reference  to  the  reciprocity  treaty  of 
1854,  in  that  it  admits  into  the  Canadian  markets  the  pro- 
ducts of  our  factories  and  shops,  which  the  treaty  of  1854 
did  not.  The  list  covered  by  the  treaty  is  as  follows:  Ag- 
ricultural implements,  of  all  kinds;  axles,  of  all  kinds;  boots 
and  shoes,  of  leather  ;  boot  and  shoemaking  machines  ; 
buffalo  robes,  dressed  and  trimmed;  cotton  grain  bags;  cot- 
ton denims;  cotton  jeans,  unbleached;  cotton  drillings,  un- 
bleached; cotton  plaids;  cotton  ticking;  cottonacks,  un- 
bleached; cabinet  ware  or  furniture,  or  parts  thereof;  car- 
riages, carts,  wagons,  and  other  wheeled  vehicles  or  sleighs, 
or  parts  thereof;  fire-engines,  or  parts  thereof;  felt  cover- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


15 


ing  for  boilers;  gutta-percha  belting  and  tubing;  iron — bar, 
hoop,  pig,  puddled,  rod,  sheet  or  scrap;  iron  nails,  spikes, 
bolts,  tacks,  braids,  or  springs,  iron-castings;  India-rubber 
belting  and  tubing;  locomotives  for  railways,  or  parts  there- 
of; lead,  sheet  or  pig;  leather,  sole  or  upper;  leather,  har- 
ness or  saddlery;  mill  or  factory  or  steamboat  fixed  engines 
and  machines,  or  parts  thereof;  manufactures  of  marble, 
stone,  slate,  or  granite;  manufactures  of  wood  solely,  or  of 
wood  nailed,  bound,  hinged,  or  locked  with  metal  materi- 
als; mangles,  washing  machines,  wringing  machines,  drying 
machines,  or  parts  thereof;  printing  paper  for  newspapers; 
paper-making  machines,  or  parts  thereof;  printing  type, 
presses  and  folders,  paper  cutters,  ruling  machines,  page- 
numbering  machines,  and  stereotyping  and  electrotyping 
apparatus,  or  parts  thereof;  refrigerators,  or  parts  thereof; 
railroad  cars,  carriages  and  trucks,  or  parts  thereof;  satin- 
ets of  wool  and  cotton;  steam-engines,  or  parts  thereof; 
steel,  wrought  or  cast,  and  steel-plates  and  rails;  tin  tubes 
and  piping;  tweeds,  of  wool  solely;  water-wheel  machines 
and  apparatus,  or  parts  thereof. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  treaty  embraced  articles  of 
common  daily  use  among  the  people  and  such  as  affect  the 
prosecution  of  leading  industries.  They  also  relate  spe- 
cially to  the  protection  of  branches  of  industry  engaged  in  by 
the  citizens  of  both  countries,  and  to  articles  in  which  con- 
siderable traffic  between  the  two  may  be  reasonably  ex- 
pected. 

Commenting  upon  the  wisdom  of  this  treaty,  one  of  the 
leading  statesmen  of  Canada,  the  Hon.  George  Brown,  who, 
as  stated,  was  one  of  the  commissioners  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  made  use  of  the  following  language,  which  I 
will  adopt,  as  it  presents  the  case  with  clearness  and  can- 
dor, and,  as  I  think,  impartially,  and  suggests  the  advan- 
tages which  are  to  inure  in  case  of  a  reciprocal  arrange- 
ment, which  not  only  includes  all  that  was  covered  by  the 


L6 


Commercial  Union  between 


treaty  of  1854,  and  proposed  in  the  negotiations  of  1874, 
but  removes  every  commercial  barrier  that  now  exists  along 
the  line  which  separates  the  two  nations. 

Speaking  of  the  ten  propositions,  Mr.  Brown  said  : 
"The  first,  second  and  seventh  of  them  go  naturally  to- 
gether, and  they  need  no  comment.  They  embrace  simply 
the  conditions  of  the  old  treaty  of  1854,  which  operated  so 
favorably  for  us,  and  so  much  more  favorably  for  the 
United  States.  I  will  leave  it  for  the  present  and  return  to 
it  again.  The  fourth  proposition — for  the  enlargement  of 
our  existing  canals — is  one  eminently  for  the  advantage  of 
the  United  States,  and  involves  a  very  large  expenditure 
on  our  part.  It  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  enormous  an- 
nual gains  that  must  result  to  the  farmers  of  the  Western 
States,  when  vessels  of  1,000  and  1,200  tons  shall  be  able 
to  load  in  the  upper  lake  ports  and  sail  direct  to  Liverpool 
— free  from  transhipment  expenses,  brokers'  commissions, 
way-harbor  dues,  and  ocean  port-charges,  and  return  direct 
to  the  prairies  with  hardy  emigrants  and  cargoes  of 
European  merchandise.  Canada,  no  doubt,  would  have  her 
share  of  benefit  from  all  this — but  it  could  not  be  com- 
pared for  a  moment  with  that  of  the  great  Northwestern 
and  some  of  the  Middle  States.  The  fifth  proposition  for 
the  construction  of  the  Caughnawaga  canal  would  be  also 
an  immense  boon  to  the  United  States.  It  would  open  up 
to  the  dense  manufacturing  population  of  New  England 
for  the  first  time,  a  direct  water  communication  of  their 
own  with  the  great  West  ;  it  would  enable  them  to  load 
ships  of  1,000  tons  at  their  Lake  Champlain  ports  with 
merchandise  for  the  prairie  States,  and  bring  them  back 
freighted  with  farm  produce;  and  when  the  Whitehall  canal 
should  be  enlarged  to  Troy,  and  the  improvements  of  the 
upper  Hudson  completed  to  deep  water,  where  in  the  wide 
world  could  be  found  so  grand  a  system  of  internal  water 
navigations  that,  stretching  as  it  then  would,  in  one  con- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


17 


tinuous  ship  channel  from  New  \Tork  on  the  Atlantic  to 
the  west  end  of  Lake  Superior,  possibly  ere  long  to  the 
eastern  base  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

"Canada,  too,  would  have  her  share  of  profit  in  all  this. 
Her  great  lumber  interests  on  the  Ottawa  and  its  branches 
would  find  full  advantage  from  it,  and  the  enterprising 
farmers  of  the  midland  and  eastern  counties  of  Ontario 
would  have  the  New  England  market,  with  its  three  and  a 
half  millions  of  manufacturing  population,  open  to  their 
traffic.  The  sixth  proposition  is  the  concession  to  each 
other  of  the  inland  coasting-trade,  and  nothing  could  be 
done  more  sensible  or  more  profitable  to  both  parties.  Our 
season  of  navigation  on  the  lakes  is  short — the  pressure  for 
vessels  in  particular  trades  at  special  times  is  very  great  on 
both  sides  of  the  lakes,  and  freights  advance  to  unreason- 
able rates.  Cheap  transportation  is  a  foremost  question  in 
this  Western  industrial  world,  and  what  can  be  conceived 
more  absurd  than  to  see,  as  is  often  seen,  large  quantities 
of  produce  lying  unshipped  for  want  of  vessels,  because 
foreign  bottoms  cannot  take  freight  from  one  port  to  an- 
other in  the  same  country  ?  What  the  United  States  could 
fear  from  the  competition  of  our  limited  marine  with  the 
5,576  vessels  of  all  kinds  and  an  aggregate  tonnage  of 
788,000  tons,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine.  The  eighth  proposi- 
tion— for  the  reciprocal  admission  of  vessels  built  in  either 
country  to  registry  in  the  other — is  generally  regarded  as 
highly  advantageous  to  this  country,  and  no  doubt  such  is 
the  fact.  But  I  confess  I  cannot  see  why  it  ought  not  to  be 
regarded  as  infinitely  more  advantageous  to  the  United 
States.  During  the  civil  war  the  merchant  vessels  of  the 
Republic  were  sold  in  large  numbers  to  foreign  owners,  and 
acquired  foreign  registers,  and  notwithstanding  that  ship- 
building had  almost  disappeared  from  the  United  States  in 
consequence  of  an  extreme  protectionist  policy,  the  law 
absolutely  forbade  their  being  brought  back  or  vessels  of 


18 


Commercial  Union  between 


foreign  build  being  purchased  in  their  room.  The  conse- 
quence is  that,  at  this  moment,  nearly  the  entire  passenger 
traffic  of  the  Atlantic  is  in  the  hands  of  foreigners — a  vast 
portion  of  the  freight  of  merchandise  from  and  to  foreign 
countries  is  also  in  the  hands  of  foreigners — and  only  two 
months  ago  we  had  the  startling  statement  made  officially 
by  Mr.  Bristow,  the  very  able  Secretary  of  the  United  States 
Treasury,  that  no  less  a  sum  than  $100,000,000  is  paid 
annually  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  foreign  ship- 
owners for  freights  and  fares.  Now,  a  large  portion  of 
these  ships,  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  require  so 
urgently,  can  be  as  well  built  in  St.  John  and  Halifax  and 
Quebec,  and  at  less  cost  than  in  any  other  country.  Why, 
then,  deprive  the  American  citizens  of  the  privilege  of  buy- 
ing them  from  us  and  sailing  them  as  their  own  ?  We 
are  told  that  American  shipbuilding  is  reviving  ;  but  were 
it  to  revive  with  all  the  rapidity  the  most  sanguine  could 
desire,  it  could  not  keep  pace  with  the  wear  and  tear  of  the 
present  reduced  marine  and  the  annually  increasing  de- 
mands, much  less  begin  to  supply  the  vacuum  created  since 
the  war.  The  ninth  and  tenth  proposals  are  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  joint  commissions  for  the  care  of  the  lighthouses 
and  the  fisheries  of  the  Jnland  waters  common  to  both  coun- 
tries ;  but  as  to  these  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion,  and 
no  doubt  of  the  great  mutual  advantage  that  might  flow 
from  the  proposed  concerted  action  in  regard  to  them." 

This  treaty  did  not  fail  by  reason  of  its  not  finding 
favor  with  the  Senate.  It  was  not  transmitted  to  that  body 
till  the  17th  of  June,  1874,  and  so  near  adjournment  that 
there  was  not  time  for  its  consideration.  The  propositions 
as  stated  show  how  broad  and  sweeping  the  contemplated 
arrangement  was  to  have  been.  Had  that  treaty  been  com- 
pleted it  would  have  been  the  most  brilliant  achievement  of 
President  Grant's  administration,  and  before  this  the  last 
barrier  that  intercepts  the  natural  and  healthful  flow  of 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


L9 


trade  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  would  have 
been  removed.  The  advantages  of  such  a  reciprocal  rela- 
tion would  have  become  so  manifest  that  not  a  vestige  of 
our  system  of  custom-houses  and  tolls  levied  upon  com- 
merce would  remain  as  witnesses  of  a  system  which  had 
nothing  to  commend  it,  and  had  its  origin  in  the  strained 
relations  which  obtained  between  England  and  the  United 
States. 

As  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  during  the  last  days  of 
the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  I  introduced  a  bill  which  pro- 
vided for  securing  full,  complete  and  unrestricted  trade  and 
commerce  between  the  sixty  millions  of  people  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  the  five  millions  of  Canadians,  who  are  not 
only  our  kinsmen,  but  are  our  nearest  neighbors — in  fact, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  of  our  very  household.  The 
bill  was  somewhat  crude,  but  presents  clearly  the  highway 
to  the  object  to  be  attained. 

It  is  suggested  that  there  is  some  doubt  as  to  how  this 
proposition  would  be  received  by  the  American  people — 
I  speak  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  First,  it  is  not 
a  party  question.  It  has  been  received  with  general  favor 
by  the  leading  journals  in  all  parts  of  the  land.  It  is  one 
that  rises  above  the  dead  level  of  mere  partisan  expedi- 
ency, and  appeals  to  a  higher  motive  and  nobler  ambition. 
It  is  a  question  of  public  policy  as  affecting  all  the  people 
of  both  sections,  and  will  so  be  viewed  by  our  people.  It 
involves,  of  course,  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  and  this  may 
suggest  a  party  aspect,  and  the  proposition  may  encounter 
opposition  from  those  who  are  reaping  large  benefits  from 
having  the  industries  in  which  they  are  engaged  specially 
and  extravagantly  protected,  and  on  the  idea  that  a  com- 
mercial union  might  militate  against  their  prosperity.  But, 
fortunately,  it  involves  the  abandonment  of  neither  free- 
trade  nor  protection  theories.  But  whether  it  be  made  a 
party  question  or  not,  the  party  lines  cannot  be  drawn 


20 


Commercial  Union  between 


closely  when  the  question  is  presented  for  action.  There 
are  times  in  the  United  States,  even  when  party  feeling  runs 
high — when  the  whippers-in  detailed  for  the  service  are  in- 
capable of  either  muzzling  their  partisans  or  absolutely  con- 
trol their  votes.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
policy  adopted  by  our  government  in  the  matter  of  estab- 
lishing reciprocity  with  Canada  will  appeal  to  the  independ- 
ence of  our  law-makers,  and  that  caucuses,  which  have  es- 
pecial reference  to  mere  party  advantage,  will  not  be  allowed 
to  control  the  action  of  Congress  adversely. 

In  discussing  this  question  we  will  of  course  bear  in 
mind  the  physical  conditions  with  which  we  have  to  treat. 
The  territory  of  Canada  is  interlocked  with  our  own.  The 
rivers  and  lakes  cross  the  boundary  lines  and  are  our  com- 
mon highways  of  traffic  and  trade.  Their  public  highways 
are  ours.  The  relation  therefore  of  our  territory  to  theirs, 
the  location  of  our  rivers,  the  facilities  for  conducting  ex- 
changes, all  suggest  and  protest  in  favor  of  unhampered 
reciprocal  trade.  The  resources  of  Canada,  in  that  which 
constitutes  material  wealth,  her  supply  of  materials  needed 
in  the  various  avocations  which  employ  our  people,  are 
boundless.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  infinite  variety  and 
exhaustless  supply  of  things  largely  indispensable  to  the 
comfort  and  enjoyment  of  our  Canadian  neighbors.  All 
these  suggest  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  free  com- 
mercial intercourse.  We  are  not  dealing  with  a  people 
across  the  ocean,  but  our  neighbors  and  kinsmen. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  read  statistics.  They  are  dry, 
and  unless  studied  with  care  are  apt  to  mislead.  While  fig- 
ures do  not  lie  they  may  be  made  to  prevaricate  most 
abominably.  It  is  chiefly  with  the  philosophy  of  the  situa- 
tion I  purpose  to  deal  to-night. 

Now,  proceeding  from  the  stand-point  which  views  the 
prospect  and  measures  it  wholly  by  dollars  and  cents,  I 
propose  to  canvass  the  situation.    And  first,  in  that  behalf, 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


21 


who  are  the  parties  to  the  controversy  ?  with  whose  interests 
are  we  dealing  ?  Leaving  out  of  the  question  the  matter  of 
revenue  for  the  support  of  the  government,  I  insist  that 
unless  it  be  the  mission  of  both  governments  to  sacrifice  the 
interests  of  the  many  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  few,  the 
present  system  which  compels  our  Canadian  neighbors  to  pay 
a  high  duty  on  fifty  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  goods  a  year 
for  the  privilege  of  supplying  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  articles  indispensable  to  their  comfort  and  pros- 
perity, and  which  compels  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  pay  a  like  sum  into  the  public  treasury  of  Canada 
for  the  privilege  of  doing  like  service  for  Canadians  living 
across  an  imaginary  line,  is  absolutely  defenceless  and  wholly 
without  excuse.  It  is  not  enough  to  show,  if  it  is  a  fact, 
that  certain  lines  of  industry  prosper  under  such  a  system. 
It  must  appear  that  on  the  whole  it  promotes  the  general 
good.  In  other  words,  the  prosperity  resulting  from  any 
governmental  system  must  be  of  that  character  in  which 
all  our  citizens  can  share.  If  defensible  at  all,  it  is  solely 
from  a  basis  of  needed  revenue. 

To  illustrate  the  character  of  the  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  I  have  procured  a  statement  of 
the  imports  from  Canada  and  the  exports  to  the  Dominion 
from  the  year  1850,  to  and  including  the  year  1878,  cover- 
ing the  period  of  partial  reciprocity  as  established  in  1854, 
and  which  terminated  in  1866.  During  that  period  Canada, 
of  her  products,  sold  to  the  United  States,  in  round  num- 
bers, % 700,000,000  worth,  the  larger  per  cent,  of  which  con- 
sisted of  lumber  or  timber.  During  the  same  period  we  ex- 
ported to  Canada  $848,000,000  worth  of  our  stock  in  trade. 
I  should  be  glad  to  learn  how  either  Canadian  or  Yankee 
prospered  by  reason  of  the  immense  tax  levied  upon  the 
goods  so  exported  or  imported.  I  should  be  glad  to  learn 
just  how  any  blessing  that  attached  to  paying  one-third  of 
the  value  of  the  goods  so  exchanged  inured  to  the  benefit 


22 


Commercial  Union  between 


of  any  considerable  number  of  our  people.  The  men  who 
used  these  goods,  both  in  this  country  and  Canada,  paid  a 
price  largely  in  excess  of  their  value,  and  only  because  they 
were  produced  across  an  imaginary  line  drawn  from  East 
to  West,  and  which  marks  the  Northern  frontier  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  the  Southern  frontier  of  Canada.  Certainly 
the  philosophy  of  the  doctrine  of  protection  has  no  applica- 
tion here. 

I  am  a  protectionist.  To  that  system  we  are  in  large 
measure  indebted  for  our  marvelous  development  in  the  in- 
dustrial arts.  One  article  in  my  political  confession  of 
faith  declares  in  favor  of  protecting  infant  industries,  in 
order  that  they  may  become  strong  enough  to  stand  alone 
and  be  independent  in  the  great  field  of  competition;  but 
that  article  refers,  mark  you,  to  infant  industries,  and  not 
to  such  as  are  full-grown  and  wear  overcoats  and  No.  10 
boots,  and  are  capable  of  maintaining  themselves  against 
all  competitors,  certainly  upon  this  side  of  the  water.  To 
protect  industries  without  reference  to  the  conditions  which 
invoke  protection  would  be  to  create  monopolies,  the  over- 
weening influence  of  which  would  be,  nay  is,  more  danger- 
ous to  liberty  than  the  crown  of  a  queen. 

Our  countrymen  Would  merit  contempt  if  they  sought 
protection  against  competition  with  Canada,  and  with  all 
due  respect  for  the  worthy  gentlemen  who  met  at  Toronto 
to  speak  for  the  manufacturers  of  Canada,  I  have  as  little 
sympathy  with  the  Canadian  who  insists  that  his  country- 
men lack  the  ability,  or  enterprise,  or  resources,  to  enable 
them  to  hold  their  own  against  competition  in  the  United 
States  in  any  field  of  industrial  effort.  In  my  judgment, 
protection  to  the  industries  of  the  United  States  against 
Canada  means  no  more  and  no  less  than  taking  the  money 
out  of  the  pocket  of  one  citizen  and  putting  it  into  the 
pocket  of  another,  the  latter  belonging  to  the  protected  and 
favored  class.  As  stated  in  my  opening  remarks,  protection, 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


23 


as  I  understand  it,  relates  to  and  deals  with  unequal  con- 
ditions, and  has  no  other  just  mission  than  to  equalize 
them.  It  certainly  is  not  intended  to  make  hard  the  lot  of 
the  many  that  we  may  rejoice  in  the  prosperity  of  the  few. 
To  protect  one  class  of  citizens  against  competition  with 
another  class,  in  any  field  of  effort  where  the  conditions  are 
the  same,  is  wholly  defenceless.  In  my  judgment,  nothing 
is  easier  than  to  defend  the  system  of  protection  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  as  against  competition  with  the  old  world.  It 
certainly  would  be  difficult  to  successfully  defend  a  similar 
system  as  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  sections  or  the 
Northern  and  Southern  sections  of  the  United  States;  and 
equally  defenceless  to  protect  against  competition  with 
Canada  and  for  a  like  reason. 

I  refer  to  this  matter  at  this  time  because  my  position 
on  the  question  of  a  commercial  union  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  my  convictions  upon  the  subject  of  protection, 
being  a  protectionist  of  a  somewhat  ultra  school.  I  insist, 
and  it  is  too  clear  to  need  argument,  that  there  is  as  little 
reason,  as  an  abstract  proposition,  in  restricting  or  in 
any  wise  hampering  the  trade  between  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  the  citizens  of  Canada  as  there  would  be 
in  imposing  the  same  conditions  and  burthens  upon  the 
trade  between  the  inhabitants  of  Ohio  and  those  of  Illinois 
and  Iowa,  and  for  like  and  obvious  reasons.  I  have  already 
suggested  that  a  tariff,  if  levied  for  protection,  relates 
solely  to  unequal  conditions  which  it  seeks  to  equalize. 
But  if  it  be  true  that  prosperity  comes  simply  through  a 
protective  tariff,  without  reference  to  conditions,  and  we  be- 
come rich  and  prosperous  by  levying  duties  upon  all  we 
buy  if  produced  elsewhere,  and  are  by  the  same  token 
fenced  out  of  every  market  to  which  we  should  sell,  by  a 
like  system  of  duties,  it  is  impossible  to  see  why  each  State 
in  this  Union  may  not  speedily  become  rich  and  prosper- 
ous by  simply  erecting  a  tariff  fence  as  between  itself  and 


24 


Commercial  Un ion  between 


the  other  States  of  the  Union.  It  is  true  the  Constitution 
forbids  this,  but  I  am  discussing  the  abstract  proposition. 
It  is  perfectly  clear  that  if  it  is  justifiable  in  the  case  of 
Canada,  as  a  measure  which  insures  prosperity  to  the  peo- 
ple adopting  it,  it  is  equally  clear  that  each  State  might  be- 
come prosperous  by  adopting  the  same  system  as  against 
the  other  States,  and,  since  prosperity  is  one  of  the  high- 
roads to  happiness,  we  have  found  out  how  each  State  and 
all  the  citizens  thereof  may  become  prosperous  and  happy 
by  taxing  themselves  and  recognizing  the  right  of  their 
neighbors  to  tax  them  also,  and  thus,  what  according  to  my 
understanding,  has  been  esteemed  a  burden,  becomes  at 
once  a  help  and  support.  Thus  Quebec  and  Ontario  and 
the  other  provinces  can  speedily  become  prosperous.  It  is 
what  Mr.  Wiman  described  as  a  process  of  taxing  oneself 
rich. 

Unless  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  something  in  the 
situation  and  condition  of  Canada  which  makes  the  case  ex- 
ceptional, and  takes  it  out  of  the  comparison  I  have  instituted, 
the  system  we  have  pursued  as  against  our  neighbors  and 
they  against  us,  is  as  defenceless  as  it  would  be  for  Pennsyl- 
vania to  seek  the  prosperity  of  all  her  people  by  a  tariff 
system  as  against  Illinois — Illinois  being  more  largely  an 
agricultural  State  than  Pennsylvania  ;  or,  to  put  the  case 
more  strongly,  as  defenceless  as  it  would  be  for  Illinois  to 
establish  a  tariff  for  the  benefit  of  all  her  citizens  as  against 
Connecticut  and  Massachusetts,  the  latter  being  manu- 
facturing States  while  the  former  is  a  great  agricultural 
State.  Every  careful  student  will  observe  that  the  law  of 
compensation  operates  constantly,  that  trade  and  commerce 
seek  natural  channels,  that  manufactures  will  ultimately, 
other  things  being  equal,  locate  nearest  the  base  of  supplies, 
since  it  involves  an  absurdity  to  ship  material  a  thousand 
miles  to  be  manufactured  and  then  reship  the  finished  pro- 
duct over  the  same  line  to  find  a  market. 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


25 


Now, what  are  the  objections  presented,  so  far  as  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  are  concerned  ?  I  hear  of  none  except  as 
they  relate  purely  and  solely  to  some  local  interest.  It  is 
proper  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  one  of  the  leading 
statesmen  of  the  day,  one  who  has  filled  possibly  a  larger 
place  in  the  public  view  than  almost  any  other  man  of  our 
day — I  allude  to  James  G.  Blaine — has  advocated,  and  most 
ably,  a  commercial  union  between  the  United  States  and 
the  South  American  States.  His  proposition  has  met  with 
general  favor,  nor  has  it  been  treated  as  a  party  question. 
If  great  advantages  are  to  be  derived  from  such  a  union, 
how  much  greater  and  more  important  are  the  advantages 
to  be  gained  from  an  intimate  trade  relation  with  those  im- 
mediately upon  our  border,  to  whom  we  are  allied  by  ties 
stronger  than  those  which  relate  merely  to  commerce,  and 
with  whom  our  trade,  although  they  number  but  five 
millions,  is  more  than  the  trade  with  the  forty  millions 
lying  south  of  us  and  with  whom  the  commercial  union 
is  proposed.  I  submit  a  statement  which  indicates 
how  much  more  valuable  to  the  United  States  as  a 
market  Canada  is  than  all  the  realms  lying  south  of  the 
Rio  Grande,  including  Mexico  and  the  South  American 
States. 

During  the  year  1885  the  United  States  sold  to  all  the 
Central  and  South  American  States  but  $27,000,000  in 
round  numbers,  and  to  all  countries  south  of  the  Rio 
Grande,  in  the  aggregate  $64,000,000.  To  the  45,000,000 
of  people  in  the  South  we  sold  $64,000,000,  while  to  the 
5,000,000  of  Canadians  we  sold  over  $50,000,000. 

If  our  hampered  and  restricted  trade  with  5,000,000 
Canadians  is  now  over  $50,000,000,  what  will  be  the  magni- 
tude of  our  commerce  in  that  direction  when  the  blockade 
is  removed,  and  when  our  neighbors  shall  number  25,000,000 
of  people  ? 


26 


Com  nh •  rcial  Union  between 


Do  American  manufacturers  fear  competition  ?  Cer- 
tainly not.  Do  they  and  our  merchants  desire  the  Cana- 
dian market  with  the  great  possibilities  that  open  up  before 
them  in  that  direction  ?  Certainly  they  do.  Does  the 
American  farmer  fear  competition  with  the  Canadian  farm- 
er ?  It  is  simply  impossible.  There  could  be  no  conflict 
of  interest.  On  the  contrary,  experience  abundantly  attests 
that  with  every  avenue  of  trade  and  commerce  between  the 
sources  of  supply  in  the  United  States  and  the  markets  of 
Canada,  and  between  every  source  of  supply  in  Canada  and 
markets  of  the  United  States  opened  up,  and  uninterrupted, 
a  new  impetus  would  be  given  to  every  branch  of  trade  and 
industry,  and  a  new  era  of  prosperity  for  both  nations 
would  dawn  upon  us.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to 
note  that  we  are  accustomed  to  explain  to  the  agriculturists, 
and  those  interested  with  them  in  tilling  the  soil,  that  their 
prosperity  has  been  secured  by  the  protective  system  in 
that  it  furnished  markets  for  their  grain  and  other  produce; 
and  that  is  in  large  measure  true;  but  if  we  pick  up  the 
statistics  which  disclose  the  range  of  prices  of  farm  products 
during  the  last  sixty  years,  we  will  find  that  whatever  may 
have  happened  to  other  branches  of  industry,  the  prices 
which  farmers  have  received  for  their  products  have  not 
substantially  advanced,  and  to  show  that  I  am  not  mistaken 
in  this  behalf  I  read  a  list  of  the  prices  which  obtained  at 
various  times  during  a  period  of  sixty  years. 

I  quote  New  York  prices  taken  from  Trade  Reports: 
Take  an  article  of  flour.  In  1825  the  price  of  flour  in  New 
York  ranged  from  $3.50  to  $4.25  a  barrel.  At  the  close  of 
the  next  five  years,  that  is  in  1830,  from  $4.75  to  $6  a  bar- 
rel. In  1835,  from  $5.37  to  $7.87;  and  in  1840,  from  $4.62 
to  $6.50;  and  in  1845,  from  $4.31  to  $7;  in  1850,  from 
$4.93  to  $6.25;  in  i860,  from  $4.25  to  $5. 25;  in  1870,  from 
$4.50  to  $6.05;  in  1880,  from  $3.75  to  $5-751  and  in  1885, 
from  $2.90  to  $3.70;  and  in  1886,  from  $2.65  to  $3.50. 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


27 


Turning  to  mackerel,  which  seems  to  be  in  point,  the 
price  in  1825  was  from  $5  to  $5.75  per  barrel.  In  1835,  it 
was  from  $6  to  $8.25;  in  1845,  from  $11.50  to  $14;  in  1855, 
from  $18  to  $22;  in  1865,  from  $15  to  $25;  in  1875,  from 
$7  to  $24;  and  in  1885,  from  $14  to  $24;  and  in  1886,  from 
$15  to  $29. 

So  it  is  difficult  to  see  how,  compared  to  the  farming 
industry,  the  fishing  industry  has  suffered.  The  range  of 
prices  has  been  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  fisherman.  Take 
the  subject  of  beef,  mess  beef,  by  the  barrel.  The  range 
of  prices  has  been  about  the  same.  In  1825,  from  $8  to 
$10;  in  1835,  from  $8  to  $13.50.  In  r^45  it  was  lower — 
from  $5.50  to  $9.75;  in  1855,  from  $8.25  to  $14;  in  1865, 
which  was  during  the  war,  it  ranged  from  $9  to  $14;  in 
1875,  from  $8  to  $10;  in  1885,  from  $10  to  $16,  and  in 
1886,  from  $5  to  $12.  The  range  in  the  price  of  hams  has 
been  about  the  same. 

Corn  has  ranged  about  the  same  for  the  last  sixty 
years.  All  these  figures  relate  to  the  market  in  New  York. 
The  great  commercial  channels  opened  up — I  mean  the 
railroads  and  canals — have  tended  to  equalize  prices,  so 
that  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  burn  corn  in  the  great 
West. 

The  range  of  prices  in  wheat  has  not  been  more  favora- 
ble to  the  farmer.  The  price  ranging  from  75  cents  to 
$1.06  in  1825  ;  from  83  to  95^  cents  in  1886. 

Mess  pork  ranged  from  $12  to  $14.75  m  I&25  5  to 
from  $9  to  $14.50  in  1885,  and  $10  to  $12.50  in  1886. 

In  the  meantime,  farmers  and  producers  generally  of 
the  things  upon  which  we  live  have  had  to  pay  largely  in- 
creased prices  for  wages.  Of  course,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  facilities  for  farming  have  greatly  increased, 
so  that  one  man  can  do  the  work  of  two  or  three.  There- 
fore, relatively,  wages  have  not  been  greatly  increased. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  are  affecting  the 


28 


Commercial  Union  between 


farmer  certain  conditions  which  no  system  of  legislation 
can  control — the  rain  and  the  sunshine.  His  crops  depend 
upon  the  earlier  and  the  latter  rains,  nor  can  any  system 
of  law  increase  the  yield  of  his  ground  in  the  presence  of  a 
drouth  or  a  superabundance  of  rain  ;  but  the  products  of 
the  factory  can  be  controlled,  the  output  limited  and  the 
prices  fixed.  His  competitors  for  the  European  market 
are  not  in  Canada,  but  in  India  and  Russia.  Canada  only 
produced  the  past  year  about  seven  per  cent,  of  the  wheat 
grown  in  this  country.  There  are  special  interests  which, 
of  course,  will  be  affected.  That  the  fishing  interest  will 
be  seriously  crippled,  I  do  not  believe,  nor  can  I  agree  that 
that  nursery  of  seamen  and  school  which  supplies  the  army 
or  the  militia  of  the  sea  will  suffer  by  reason  of  fair  com- 
petition between  the  Canadians  and  the  men  of  New  Eng- 
land who  go  down  to  the  sea  to  catch  fish.  If  with  similar 
conditions  and  fair  competition  we  cannot  hold  our  own 
on  sea  and  land  the  trouble  must  be  found  in  conditions 
which  are  not  to  be  righted  by  the  levying  of  a  tax  which 
increases  the  price  of  every  codfish  ball  and  every 
mackerel  which  is  placed  upon  the  table  for  food.  So 
far  as  the  timber  interest  is  concerned  it  has  no  proper 
place  in  our  system  of  protection,  the  object  of  which 
is  to  build  up  industries,  but  unfortunately  for  the  tim- 
ber industry  in  this  country  the  more  it  is  protected,  the 
more  it  is  cherished,  the  more  speedily  it  dies,  and  we  are 
and  have  been  taxing  ourselves  upon  every  shingle  we  use 
and  every  beam  that  we  require  to  construct  a  dwelling, 
not  to  make  strong  an  industry  that  will  flourish  and 
grow  and  furnish  a  more  ample  yield,  but  simply  to  pay  a 
bonus  to  certain  individuals  who  have  prospered  beyond 
measure,  and  without  any  corresponding  benefit  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  people  of  this  country  upon  whom  the  tribute 
was  levied. 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


29 


The  Canadian  forests  are  limitless.  Their  timber  is 
rotting  and  going  to  waste,  while  the  citizens  01  the  United 
States  are  paying  enormous  prices  for  a  supply  to  construct 
houses  and  make  shingles  to  cover  their  heads,  and  thou- 
sands of  mechanics  are  idle  for  want  of  the  material — lum- 
ber— to  enable  them  to  prosecute  their  calling.  Idle  men 
on  both  sides  of  the  line  are  the  direct  and  necessary  result 
of  our  absurd  system.  It  is  not  only  absurd,  but  an  out- 
rage upon  our  people,  when  one  or  two  industries  are  per- 
mitted, nay  authorized,  for  their  own  benefit,  to  tax  every 
other  vocation,  trade  and  calling  in  this  country,  and  thus 
impose  needless  burthens.  The  time  has  come  when  both 
burdens  and  blessings  should  be  more  equitably  distrib- 
uted, and  what  is  proposed  here  is  a  step  in  the  right  direc- 
tion. 

Now,  with  your  indulgence,  I  will  consider  for  a  mo- 
ment the  objections  raised  by  our  friends  across  the  line 
to  the  consummation  of  full  and  complete  reciprocity. 
They  are,  first,  that  such  a  system  would  be  destructive  to 
the  manufacturing  interests  of  Canada  ;  second,  that  it 
would  be  treason  against  the  mother  country  ;  that  it  is,  in 
fact,  the  essence  of  disloyalty,  and  that  it  means  in  its  last 
analysis  annexation  to  and  absorption  by  the  United  States. 
Lastly,  it  is  urged  that  the  mercantile  interests  of  Canada 
would  suffer,  and  that  drummers  from  New  York  and  Bos- 
ton would  absolutely  destroy  the  trade  of  Montreal,  Quebec, 
Toronto,  Hamilton  and  the  leading  cities  of  the  Dominion  ; 
that  the  revenues  of  Canada  would  be  lost. 

I  notice,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  a  leading  journal  of 
Toronto  suggests  that  you  and  I  were  born  twenty-five 
years  too  late  for  all  purposes  of  reciprocity  and  commer- 
cial union  between  Canada  and  the  United  States,  and  in 
the  same  article  it  is  suggested  that  a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago  this  matter  might  have  been  favorably  considered,  but 
now  it  cannot  be.    And  attention  is  called  in  that  connec- 


30 


Commercial  Union  between 


tion  to  the  fact  that  there  must  be  borne  in  mind  "  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  past  twenty  years  in  railroad  construction, 
in  acquiring  territory,  and  in  various  ways  having  in  view 
inter-provincial  trade  and  the  development  of  Canadian 
national  sentiment  through  closer  inter-provincial  commer- 
cial relations,  the  purpose  being  to  do  away  with  unnatural- 
barriers,  and  allow  each  province  to  cultivate  the  trade  ad- 
jocent  to  it."  The  argument  submitted  by  the  learned  editor 
defeats  itself.  The  only  purpose  of  improving  the  railroad 
system  of  either  country,  and  improving  the  water-ways,  is 
to  enable  the  producers  to  reach  the  markets  of  the  world. 
If  they  serve  any  other  proper  purpose  it  is  difficult  to  un- 
derstand what  it  is.  It  is  also  suggested  as  a  part  of  the 
criticism  of  the  policy  of  reciprocity  that  the  system  and 
efforts  before  referred  to,  of  improved  agencies  for  commer- 
cial intercourse,  were  made  to  do  away  with  the  unnatural 
barriers  between  the  provinces,  and  to  cultivate  the  trade 
adjacent  to  them.  This  is  pertinent  and  suggests  that  all 
barriers  that  block  the  natural  highways  of  trade  and  com- 
merce should  be  removed.  It  suggests  also  that  it  is  natural 
and  proper  to  cultivate  the  trade  which  is  at  hand  rather 
than  seek  a  market  in  the  distance  when  a  better  one  is 
near  our  own  doors.  That  is  precisely  the  thing  for  which 
patriots  on  both  sides  of  the  line,  in  Canada  and  America, 
are  struggling,  and  with  a  view  to  securing  advantages  to  all 
who  have  a  right  to  share  in  the  prosperity  which  grows  out 
of  unselfish  patriotism  and  attaches  to  proper  individual 
effort. 

The  point  made  in  the  same  article,  that  drummers 
from  New  York  and  Boston  would  destroy  the  mercantile 
business  of  Canada,  is  hardly  worth  considering.  The  argu- 
ment has  been  met  and  answered  a  hundred  times,  and  the 
experience  of  everyday  life  absolutely  shows  how  fallacious 
it  is.  If  the  objections  mentioned  were  well  taken,  it  must 
follow  that  there  would  not  be  a^healthful  mercantile  busi- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


31 


ness  carried  on  in  any  of  the  cities  of  the  great  West.  Cer- 
tainly New  York  and  Boston  would  have  no  advantages 
over  Canadian  cities  that  they  do  not  have  over  the  towns  and 
cities  of  the  great  West.  To  suggest  that  the  rival  compe- 
tition of  New  York  and  Boston  would  destroy  the  mercan- 
tile interests  of  Canada  would  be  to  assert  that  the  mer- 
chants of  Canada  and  Canadian  enterprise  belong  to  a  for- 
mer century,  and  to  a  people  who  do  not  possess  the  aggres- 
sive energy  and  merit  to  compete  with  all  comers  in  an 
even  field  of  business  venture. 

It  will  be  remembered,  in  this  same  connection,  that 
there  was  at  one  time,  among  men  representing  large  east- 
ern interests,  much  opposition  to  the  enlargement  of  the 
facilities  for  transportation  along  the  line  of  our  northern 
frontier,  whether  by  our  Canadian  friends  or  our  own  peo- 
ple; it  being  urged  that  it  would  open  up  a  line  of  travel,  a 
commercial  highway  if  you  please,  which  would  cripple  the 
middle  and  southern  lines  of  trade  and  commerce.  Time 
has  demonstrated  how  thoroughly  untenable  the  position 
was.  Men  only  have  rightly  to  consider  the  elements  that 
enter  into  a  solution  of  these  various  problems  to  observe 
that  the  lav/  of  compensation  operates  everywhere. 

It  is  urged  by  certain  honorable  gentlemen  in  Canada, 
and  by  some  in  this  country,  as  an  objection  to  the  meas- 
ure, that  the  move  in  the  direction  of  commercial  union 
seeks  ultimately,  and  has,  in  fact,  for  its  prime  object,  the 
annexation  of  Canada  to  the  United  States.  Do  gentlemen 
believe  that  annexation  would  follow  commercial  union  ? 
If  so,  upon  what  do  they  base  their  conclusion  ?  Does 
Canadian  prosperity  involve  annexation  to  the  United 
States  ?  Does  Canadian  prosperity  involve  disloyalty  to  the 
British  crown  ?  If  so,  why  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  re- 
lation of  Canada  to  the  mother  country  which  suggests  that 
prosperity  can  only  come  to  Canadians  by  severing  their 
connection  with  the  English  government  ?    It  would  seem 


32 


Commercial  Union  between 


that  gentlemen  who  insist  that  prosperity  means  annexa- 
tion must  conclude  that  annexation  is  indispensable  to 
Canadian  prosperity  and  happiness.  I  do  not  agree  with 
them.  Canadians  are  satisfied  with  their  form  of  govern- 
ment. There  is  no  desire  on  this  side  to  change  it,  nor  yet 
to  have  them  adopt  any  phase  of  our  own.  We  can  work 
out  our  destinies  side  by  side.  That  we  must  and  will  have 
one  common  destiny  in  many  respects  I  have  no  doubt. 
We  are  one  people  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  so  far  as 
Christian  civilization  and  the  end  it  seeks  is  concerned;  and, 
so  far  as  the  things  to  be  attained  by  the  growth  and  exten- 
sion of  that  civilization  require  a  common  purpose  and  a 
common  effort,  we  will,  whatever  the  respective  forms  of 
government  under  which  we  live,  be  one  people.  Com- 
mercial union  is  in  no  wise  inseparable  from  annexation. 
One  does  not  suggest  the  other,  unless  the  fact  that  such  a 
union  banishes  all  possibility  of  attrition  between  the  two 
countries,  and  puts  the  seal  to  a  bond  of  perpetual  peace 
between  them,  is  evidence  of  a  desire  for  annexation. 

I  may  stop  here  to  call  the  attention  of  the  honorable 
members  of  this  Club  to  a  few  facts  bearing  upon  the  his- 
tory of  Canada  and  her  relations  to  Great  Britain.  I  have 
already  alluded  to  it.  Gentlemen  are,  of  course,  aware 
that  the  tie  which  binds  us  to  Canada  has  little  relation  to 
commerce — the  tie  that  binds  ourselves  and  Canada  to 
Great  Britain — I  speak  not  now  of  political  relations,  but 
those  that  grow  out  of  kinship,  similar  language  and  simi- 
lar religion — have  little  relationship  to  commercial  inter- 
course. If  Canada  finds  no  closer  tie  between  her  people 
and  those  from  whom  they  are  descended  than  that  which 
is  born  of  trade  and  commerce,  it  is  a  matter  of  little  con- 
sequence how  soon  those  ties  are  severed.  The  history  of 
Canada  and  of  the  United  States,  so  far  as  England  is  con- 
cerned, is  the  same.  The  record  of  the  history  of  Canada 
during  the  last  half  century  discloses  the  fact  that  her  com- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


33 


plaints  against  the  mother  country  have  been  similar  in 
character  to  those  which  compelled  the  colonies  to  petition 
for  redress  of  grievances.  Canada  complained  of  the  navi- 
gation laws  so  far  as  they  appertained  to  her.  They  were 
modified  or  absolutely  changed.  She  insisted  that  it  was 
her  right  to  regulate  her  internal  policy  by  representatives 
chosen  by  the  people  who  were  to  be  affected  by  the  laws. 
That  too  was  conceded.  She  demanded  also  that  she 
should  collect  and  disburse  her  own  revenue,  according  to 
her  own  idea  of  correct  internal  policy.  That  too  was  con- 
ceded. She  asked  in  effect  that  she  should  be  sovereign, 
within  her  borders,  touching  all  matters  pertaining  to  her 
civil  administration.  That  too  was  conceded,  and  these 
just  concessions  have  above  all  else  to-day — barring  the 
mere  matter  of  kinship  and  the  ties  of  common  ancestry, 
of  a  common  religion  if  you  please,  and  those  which  grow 
out  of  similar  institutions,  and  as  1  believe  a  common  des- 
tiny— preserved  among  Canadians  the  spirit  of  perfect  loy- 
alty toward  Creat  Britain. 

The  fear  that  Canada  will  be  absorbed  by  the  United 
States,  or  that  she  will  lose  her  independence  and  dignity 
as  a  sovereign  nation,  strikes  me  as  absurd.  Whether  she 
shall  stand  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  great,  rich  and 
independent,  will  turn  upon  the  character  of  her  people 
and  the  manner  in  which  she  utilizes  her  vast  resources. 
Her  mineral  resources  invite  the  most  healthful  character 
of  immigration.  Her  vast  forests  are  only  waiting  for 
hardy  pioneers  and  adventurous  spirits  to  prosecute  the 
various  avocations  which  depend  upon  a  supply  of  timber. 
It  is  so  with  reference  to  her  various  resources. 

I  observe  also  that  it  is  suggested  by  some  writers  for 
the  Canadian  press  that  such  an  arrangement  as  is  contem- 
plated would  be  in  the  nature  of  an  alliance  offensive  and 
defensive  with  the  United  States  as  against  Great  Britain. 
This  is  so  far  from  the  fact  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  in 


34 


Cominercial  Union  between 


the  nature  of  an  appeal  to  unenlightened  patriotic  sentiment 
rather  than  to  the  intelligent  judgment  of  our  Canadian 
friends. 

It  is  not  for  the  mere  advantage  which  is  to  be  counted 
in  dollars  and  cents  that,  as  an  American  citizen,  I  urge  full 
reciprocity  with  Canada.  It  is  to  secure,  not  a  bond  of 
political  union,  but  nevertheless  a  bond  of  union  which  will 
keep  the  English-speaking  race  now  and  for  all  time  one 
people  in  fulfilling  the  mission  of  the  highest  and  best  form 
of  civilization  the  world  has  known. 

The  resolution  adopted  by  the  gentlemen  who  met  in 
Toronto,  asserts  "  That  unrestricted  reciprocity  in  manufac- 
tured goods  would  be  a  serious  blow  at  the  commercial  in- 
tegrity of  the  Dominion  and  would  result  disastrously  to 
their  manufacturing  and  farming  industries  and  other 
financial  and  commercial  interests."  The  farmers,  at  least, 
had  spoken  for  themselves,  and  their  resolution  was  certainly 
the  outgrowth  of  intelligent  investigation  and  a  just  appre- 
ciation of  what  was  essential  to  create  prosperous  conditions. 
I  doubt  if  the  honorable  gentlemen  in  the  resolution  repre- 
sent the  sentiments  of  any  very  large  portion  of  the  people 
of  Canada  who,  in  the  last  analysis,  are  to  bear  the  burthens 
of  what  is  dubbed  the  N.  P.,  or  national  policy  of  protec- 
tion. 

Did  it  ever  occur  to  our  manufacturing  friends  in 
Toronto  that  the  resources  at  their  command,  which  are 
almost  illimitable,  must  attract  to  their  borders  the  active 
energy  which,  after  all,  makes  a  country  great  and  prosper- 
ous ?  That  such  would  be  the  case  all  history  abundantly 
attests.  Possibly,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  reciprocity  had  obtained 
twenty-five  years  ago,  we  would  not  have  been  honored  by 
your  presence  and  masterly  enterprise  in  New  York.  In 
fact,  this  Club  might  not  have  been  in  existence.  The  energy 
which  you  have  put  forth  here  would  have  found  such  pro- 
fitable employment  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  that  you 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


35 


would  not  have  come  among  us,  but  your  friendship  for  us, 
nor  ours  for  you,  would  have  been  a  whit  lessened  by  the 
fact  of  the  prosperity  which  waited  upon  each  country. 

Whatever  may  be  said  to  the  contrary,  I  take  it  from 
the  discussions  in  the  English  Parliament  that  England  will 
not  feel  greatly  disturbed  over  a  commercial  union  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States.  Able  discussions  in  that 
body  as  to  the  effect  of  protective  tariffs  indicate  that  it  is 
the  opinion  of  English  statesmen  that  whatever  advantage 
may  accrue  to  the  protected  country,  if  any,  no  disadvant- 
age will  result  to  England.  Such  is  the  statement  made  by 
Mr.  Chamberlain,  and  his  statement  is  supported  by  figures, 
cited  in  his  speech  of  August  12,  1881,  in  reply  to  an 
address  from  the  throne,  which  urged  retaliatory  measures 
as  against  nations  exacting  high  duties  on  goods  imported 
from  England.  I  have  here  the  speech  of  Mr.  Chamberlain, 
and  have  been  interested  in  observing  how  thoroughly  his 
conclusions  are  sustained  by  the  statistics  he  cites.  I  regret 
that  I  have  not  time  to  read  portions  of  it. 

I  think  careful  investigation  will  disclose  that  any  indus- 
try which  should  be  protected  in  Canada  as  against 
European  competition  would  require  an  equal  protection 
in  the  United  States,  and  that  protective  system  which  in 
its  operation  would  be  of  benefit  to  Canada  would  be  equally 
beneficial  to  the  United  States,  and  vice  versa.  In  large 
part,  of  course,  duties  would  be  levied  with  reference  to 
the  revenue  to  be  derived,  the  protection  in  large  part  being 
merely  incidental. 

It  is  suggested  by  certain  gentlemen,  and  I  speak  of 
this  because  I  am  addressing  Canadians,  that  the  proper 
thing  would  be  an  arrangement  of  reciprocity  between 
England  and  Canada  in  which  the  former  should  discrimi- 
nate against  the  farm  produce  of  other  countries.  That 
would  be  a  very  remarkable  proceeding — to  add  to  the 
price  of  the  food  on  every  laborer's  table  in  England  in 


;5i; 


Commercial  Union  between 


order  to  obtain  a  market  for  the  output  of  British  factories. 
Such  a  scheme  would  not  be  defensible  for  one  moment. 
Nor  would  England  be  content  to  tax  the  bread  and 
potatoes  and  meat  of  her  workmen  to  attain  the  possible 
advantage  of  a  new  market  in  which  to  sell  the  products  of 
her  shops. 

So  far  as  the  agricultural  interests  of  this  country  and 
Canada  are  concerned  it  must  be  conceded  that  they  are 
not  as  able  to  secure  a  hearing  ns  the  manufacturers,  the 
merchants  and  financiers,  who  are  more  immediately  con- 
nected with  the  active  business  of  trade  and  commerce. 
The  cities  are  centres  of  political  influence,  and  also  the 
centres  of  trade  and  financial  ventures,  and  hence  the  in- 
terest in  competition  with  agriculture  not  only  have  more 
ready  access  to  the  public  ear,  but  the  sympathies  of  those 
who  have  the  most  ample  means  to  control  the  current  of 
public  thought  are  lodged  in  the  quarter  which  promises 
most  remuneration. 

I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  speakers  at  the  manu- 
facturers' convention  at  Toronto,  and  the  editors  who  echo 
the  sentiments  expressed,  that  the  prosperity  they  would  se- 
cure to  Canada  as  a  result  of  defeating  all  reciprocity  that 
is  not  onesided,  is  of  a  character  that  will  not  be  shared  in 
generally  by  the  mass  of  people  on  either  side  of  the  line. 
The  time  has  come  when  the  burthens  and  blessings  inci- 
dent to  national  development  and  healthful  growth  must  be 
shared  equally  by  all  as  nearly  as  may  be,  and  I  think  we 
may  rejoice  in  the  fact  that  the  farmers,  artisans  and  pro- 
ducers generally  of  Canada  and  the  United  States  will  no 
longer  permit  those  who  alone  profit  by  a  protective  system 
which  does  not  deal  with  and  correct  unequal  conditions, 
without  rebuke  to  assume  to  represent  and  speak  for  all 
who  have  a  right  to  be  heard  on  the  question.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  see  how  any  interest  of  Canada  or  the  Unied  States 
could  suffer  by  reason  of  an  active,  healthful  trade  be- 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


37 


tween  the  two  nations.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  see  how  a 
growing  tide  swelling  every  artery  and  vein  of  commerce, 
reaching  from  every  part  of  Canada  to  the  markets  of  the 
United  States  and  from  every  part  of  the  producing  sec- 
tions of  the  United  States  to  Canada  to  meet  the  demands 
of  the  people,  could  injure  any  business  interest  that  is  fit 
to  survive.  The  suggestion,  to  my  mind  at  least,  is  absurd, 
and  I  greatly  doubt  if  it  has  its  origin  in  a  patriotic  love  of 
country.  There  is  about  it  a  savor,  if  not  a  positive  sug- 
gestion of  selfish  interest  to  be  served  by  securing  profits,  by 
escaping  burdens  imposed  upon  others  as  a  means  to  secure 
those  profits. 

I  note  what  is  said  touching  the  destructive  influence 
of  international  free  commerce  upon  the  fisheries  and  some 
other  industries.  It  is  asserted  with  great  force,  and  seem- 
ingly the  assertion  is  sustained  by  statistics,  that  free 
fisheries  mean  the  destruction  absolutely  of  the  Ameri- 
can fishing  interest.  In  reply  to  that  I  have  to  say 
that  if  on  equal  terms  the  American  fisherman  is  unable  to 
compete  with  the  fisherman  of  Canada  it  does  not  prove 
the  former  inferior  in  any  respect,  or  that  he  lacks  the  ca- 
pacity to  accomplish  what,  under  the  same  circumstances, 
the  Canadian  can  accomplish,  but  it  does  prove  that  there 
is  something  wrong  in  our  policy,  in  some  part  of  our  gov- 
ernmental machinery,  that  any  business  is  so  oppressed 
that  with  even  chances  in  the  arena  of  competition  Yankees 
are  driven  from  the  field  hopeless  and  crushed;  and  the 
remedy  must  be  sought  otherwise  than  by  driving  such  com- 
petition from  our  midst  by  oppressive  legislation.  If  we 
feel  we  are  unequal  to  the  task  of  holding  our  own  in  the 
field  of  open,  free  and  equal  competition,  we  had  better  im- 
prove our  stock.  I  am  for  America  and  American  institu- 
tions and  interests  first,  last  and  all  the  time;  but  that  ques- 
tion is  not  involved  here.  It  is  only  of  doing  that  which 
shall  build  up  every  American  interest  that  is  worth  cher- 


3<S  Commercial  Union  between 


ishing,  and  we  will  not  build  up  one  at  the  expense  of 
another,  since  by  such  means  our  industrial  growth  would 
be  neither  healthful  or  permanent. 

If  any  industry  of  the  United  States  carried  on  within 
our  own  territory  or  along  our  coast  cannot  survive  compe- 
tition with  that  of  our  immediate  neighbors  divided  from 
us  only  by  an  imaginary  line,  the  reason  for  such  failure 
upon  our  part  must  be  sought  in  some  unwise  feature  of 
governmental  policy,  which  hampers  our  citizens  in  their 
efforts,  and  not  in  the  mere  matter  of  superior  merit  on  the 
part  of  our  competitors  to  conduct  the  industry  or  enter- 
prise. Until  I  am  satisfied  of  my  error,  for  one  I  am  un- 
willing to  admit  that  we  are  not  equal  to  the  emergency  of 
holding  our  own  with  any  nation  in  the  world  that  competes 
with  us  under  circumstances  substantially  the  same,  and  I 
would  be  ashamed  of  the  Canadian  who  would  not  make 
the  like  assertion  concerning  his  countrymen. 

I  have  already  commented  upon  the  proposition  which 
suggests  that  it  is  the  mission  of  the  government  to  provide 
such  artificial  conditions  that  it  shall  be  as  profitable  to 
farm  thin,  impoverished  soil  in  New  England  as  it  is  to  cul- 
tivate the  rich  valleys  of  the  Mohawk  or  the  Scioto  and  the 
Wabash.  I  have  only  to  say  that  when  the  government  es- 
says to  do  that  I  am  earnestly  in  favor  of  revolution.  We 
are  not  wanting  in  rich  soil  in  this  courltry  sufficient  to  feed 
the  world,  and  that  part  of  the  country  which  is  not  fit  for 
profitable  cultivation  can  be  abandoned,  enriched  by  pri- 
vate enterprise,  or  used  for  other  purposes  than  farming. 
Our  transportation  facilities  are  sufficient  to  feed  the  locali- 
ties where  the  manufacturing  industries  are  located.  The 
law  of  compensation  applies,  and  if  New  England  finds  it 
not  profitable  to  farm,  she  still  finds  it  profitable  to  engage 
in  manufactures  of  various  kinds,  and  her  people,  if  not  the 
producers  of  corn  and  wheat,  are  nevertheless  producers  of 
plows,  hoes,  trace-chains,  and  thousands  of  other  necessary 


Canada  and  the  United  States. 


39 


articles,  and  the  genius  of  her  sons  has  made  them  very 
rich;  in  fact,  they  are  the  bankers  of  the  United  States,  and 
eastern  thrift  has  been  so  great  that  their  capitalists  hold 
mortgages  on  a  large  part  of  the  farms  in  the  West.  I  trust, 
if  the  time  has  not  come,  it  is  not  far  off  when  the  govern- 
ment will  be  engaged  in  some  other  mission  than  that  of 
multiplying  the  blessings  of  the  few  by  an  inequitable  dis- 
tribution of  public  burthens. 

This  measure  should  be  considered  by  every  board  of 
trade,  every  chamber  of  commerce,  every  agricultural  asso- 
ciation, every  society  composed  of  manufacturers  and  pro- 
ducers generally.  Congress  has  and  will  have  no  official 
judgment  about  it.  The  boards  and  associations  I  have 
mentioned  must  do  the  legislating — Congress  is  only  a 
sounding  board,  a  cave  of  echoes,  an  assemblage  of  un- 
patented graphophones  repeating  what  is  talked  into  them 
by  the  people. 

They  are  engaged  for  the  most  part  in  formulating  into 
law  the  popular  will,  and  I  by  no  means  use  the  term  popu- 
lar will  as  synonymous  with  intelligent  public  judgment. 
As  individuals,  Congressmen  have  intelligent  convictions, 
are  capable,  conscientious  men;  but  as  Congressmen  they  do 
not  attempt  to  form  or  direct  the  public  mind.  They  re- 
spond to  your  will.  It  is  their  business  to  agree  with  you, 
for  by  this  they  live,  and  they  will  not  consciously  commit 
political  suicide. 

It  follows  that  you  will  determine  for  yourselves  and 
the  country  whether  the  immense  volume  of  our  trade  shall 
be  damned  up  and  rolled  back  upon  ourselves,  and  whether 
a  system  which  smacks  of  an  earlier  period  and  a  ruder  and 
less  advanced  civilization,  will  continue  to  dwarf  our  enter- 
prise and  retard  our  development. 


0 


